Conceptualizing blended learning models as a sustainable and inclusive educational approach: an organizational dynamics perspective

As nations move further into an increasingly digitized era, they actively seek ways to navigate the challenges presented by technological advancements while aligning with overarching goals like advancing sustainability and fostering inclusivity. Higher education institutions (HEIs) have a key responsibility regarding the sustainable development of society (Kräusche and Pilz, 2017), particularly in the education of future leaders and in the public awareness of sustainability (Amaral et al., 2015). HEIs also represent a crucial stakeholder in the promotion and implementation of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are the set of 17 goals, aimed to create for everyone by 2030 a better and a more sustainable future (Vallez et al., 2022), and the digitalization of society by producing knowledge for new technologies and social innovation (Carayannis and Morawska-Jancelewicz, 2022). A pivotal aspect of the potential of emerging educational technologies lies in their capacity to digitally transform education and expand access to high-quality learning opportunities, particularly for disadvantaged groups and underrepresented minorities (Farley and Burbules, 2022; Shaya et al., 2022). This aligns with the UN SDGs 4 (Quality Education) and 10 (Reduced Inequalities), inducing sustainability in education and reshaping universities as organizations that can ‘produce’ sustainable development.

In the United Arab Emirates, hybrid and blended learning (BL) have become increasingly prevalent in universities (Kumar, 2023), poising as a promising sustainable approach to education. In principle, both hybrid and BL involve online interactions. However, hybrid learning caters to both in-person and remote students simultaneously, whereas BL combines in-person and online learning activities. In this research, the term “blended” is preferred over “hybrid” when describing blended/hybrid learning, as “blended” suggests a more harmonious integration of methods compared to the more disparate connotation of “hybrid” (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003). BL is characterized by the strategic combination of online and face-to-face teaching (Arnesen et al., 2019), while a course is considered to be blended when part of its instructional sessions is conducted online, whereas the remaining hours are delivered via face-to-face sessions (Adams et al., 2015). This growth in BL has been driven by technological advancements, a push for educational innovation and the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic (Imran et al., 2023), where universities had to reconsider and revamp its educational roadmap. The HE system required a swift shift from traditional face-to-face learning to an Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT), resulting in unplanned and temporary shift to online education and campus operations (Ahmed and Opoku, 2022). This mandated that both educators and learners develop digital literacy and competencies, and consistently use educational innovations (Halder et al., 2024). Presently, several universities in the UAE offer BL options to accommodate a variety of student needs and aiming at advancing the national agenda on transforming the education system in light of the digital economy. For instance, one university has introduced a new hybrid education model tailored for working students. This model combines in-person and online education, catering to students who require a flexible schedule (Al Amir, 2023). Another university has collaborated with educational organizations to offer their MBA programs in a BL format, demonstrating commitment to innovative and accessible education (Al Ghurair Foundation, 2021). Thus, institutions are using the expertise and infrastructure developed during the COVID-19 pandemic to broaden access to educational opportunities.

Research shows that BL encompasses not only physical spaces but also a variety of digital, informational, social and conceptual spaces that are intertwined in the creation and use of a BL environment (Garrison and Kanuka, 2004). Such space diverges widely from the traditional classroom setting and as such requires a new set of pedagogical policies, practices, technological advancements and training for staff and students (Bøjer and Brøns, 2022). Digital innovations have the power to enrich and transform education, accelerating progress toward SDG 4 for education and revolutionizing improved access to learning (UNICEF, 2024). This study aims to contribute to this area, where currently some universities in the UAE offer BL modes. By catering to a wide range of needs and circumstances, BL stands out as an inclusive and adaptable option in universities. This flexibility can be particularly beneficial for students with disabilities, those who have work or family commitments, and those living in remote areas where access to HE might otherwise be limited (Al Amir, 2023). BL approach as well supports diverse learning styles, as students can choose to review online resources at their own pace, revisit lectures and access materials tailored to different learning preferences. The online component in BL environments facilitates personalized learning experiences, enabling educators to provide targeted support and resources to meet individual student needs (Arnesen et al., 2019). Personalized learning engages students as co-creators in their education by offering choices and increased autonomy in shaping their learning experience (Arnesen et al., 2019).

In addition to, and along the line of inclusiveness, another emerging and urgent cornerstone in education in recent decades, especially in the face of an alarming climate situation, has been sustainability. This tenant, has taken shape through the UN SDGs in the education sector (McCowan, 2023), specifically SDG 4 and SDG 5, whereas SDG 10 covers the above inclusiveness aspect. Nonetheless, sustainability is still poorly adopted in the education sector, although it has been well established that HEIs can be successful conduits to apply principles and practices of SDGs, especially as they can be the transformational agents of the habits of their communities at large through their staff, students and their families (HESI, 2022). In addition, the theoretical landscape surrounding the contribution of digital transformation to sustainability in universities is lacking in literature (Trevisan et al., 2023), which emphasizes the novel aspects of this study. In particular, its contribution is through determining the overall level of research on the subjects, theoretical stances in this area and potential avenues for further investigation. The commitment to promoting sustainable access and equity, in our perspective, stands as a paramount consideration in evaluating BL modes of delivery. Notably, not all students possess the skills, personality traits or academic background conducive to success in BL classrooms, while empirical studies have only begun to emerge (Raes et al., 2020), with most of the existing research exploratory and qualitative in nature (Raes et al., 2020). In fact, the majority of the few existing studies has mainly described students’ experiences, such as motivation and engagement as predictors to blended learners’ satisfaction (Xiao et al., 2020), organizational implementation, such as cost-effectiveness models (Wang et al., 2017) and technological design (Bülow, 2022). The literature around students’ outcomes however is contradictory, with some studies confirming that flexible course delivery options have little to no negative impact on student learning (White et al., 2010), others reveal that BL optimizes students’ self-regulation and reflection and overall college students’ learning outcomes (Zhang et al., 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has additionally brought achievement growth to light. Widening achievement gaps have been reported in multiple studies (Adams et al., 2015; Goldhaber et al., 2022), certifying the question “does technology increase learning?” As such, this paper expands the theoretical boundaries on how management of learning and education at the institutional level transforms to support the implementation of BL, theorizing a new understanding on the needed structures of organizational support. Key research questions are considered:

Although empirical research on the effectiveness of online learning has recently exploded, creating, accepting and validating theoretical frameworks specific to the BL environment is still a work in progress. The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (see Figure 1) is a collaborative-constructivist process model based on John Dewey’s educational philosophy and social constructivism that offers profound insights into producing meaningful learning experiences (Garrison, 2017; Jan et al., 2019; Castellanos-Reyes, 2020), and is distinguished as a means to examine the effectiveness of BL environments in HE. CoI model demonstrates that a rich learning experience can be created at the intersection of three main dimensions: cognitive presence (CP), social presence (SP) and teaching presence (TP) (Garrison, 2017; Castellanos-Reyes, 2020; Krzyszkowska and Mavrommati, 2020). The dimensions are necessary, interdependent and provide a complete picture of the community’s vibrant learning environment. The power of BL modes resides in the ability to facilitate CoI that provides the necessary conditions for unrestricted communication, dialogues, discussion, negotiations and consensus (Garrison and Kanuka, 2004). CP is defined as a cycle of practical inquiry in which participants intentionally move from understanding the problem or issue to exploration, integration and application (Garrison, 2017). SP is defined as the level of students’ perceptions of their social and emotional relationships with one another in an online learning environment (Garrison and Arbaugh, 2007; Swan et al., 2020). SP has been linked to student satisfaction, as well as perceived and actual learning (Hwang and Arbaugh, 2006). TP is defined as the delivery of a course from the perspectives of design, facilitation and learning guidelines for students to achieve the course learning outcomes (Akyol and Garrison, 2011). Strong leadership and a clear learning design structure have been shown to increase student engagement in collaborative settings. TP is viewed as a predictor of student satisfaction and perceived learning (Garrison and Arbaugh, 2007). The CoI framework has been used in numerous instructional design studies, either as a dominant theoretical framework or in combination with other e-learning design models (Krzyszkowska and Mavrommati, 2020) to validate and guide the design of blended courses with the goal of developing higher-order thinking skills. In this study, the CoI framework is used to investigate how SP, TP and CP contribute to skills acquired by HE students through blended delivery, specifically in the UAE context, and how these acquired skills correlate together to produce a meaningful BL experience. It is important to note here that the UAE provides a strong case study to investigate BL models within a sustainable educational approach for various reasons. For one, the UAE boasts advanced technological and financial capacities, ranking among the most high-tech nations in the MENA region and globally. As such, with the availability of the technological infrastructure, online and BL modes have been quickly adopted in the country (Puthiya et al, 2023). In addition, the UAE has unveiled many governmental strategies and policies around sustainability such as the Green Agenda 2030 (UAE government, 2021), in which competitive knowledge economy is high priority and coordination between the Ministries of Climate Change and Environment and Education (whose vision is “sustainable innovative education”) is encouraged, supported and ongoing. Moreover, while research exploring the association of BL with organizational and educational management is still nascent internationally (Fallah, 2012; Townsend, 2015), there is very little in the Gulf region generally and the UAE specifically, justifying further the need to shed light on the matter within this context. Our study is the first in this line of research for the UAE context, examining how acquired skills affect students’ overall BL experience.

BL is influenced by course content and learning objectives, as well as student characteristics and learning preferences, teacher experience and teaching style and online resources (Dziuban et al., 2018; Syafril, et al., 2021). To embrace the coexistence and entanglement of multiple dimensions, the creation and use of a BL space necessitates the development and integration of new pedagogical practices, technological advancement and physical spaces that differ from traditional settings (Bøjer and Brøns, 2022). This implies that universities should provide faculty with adequate pedagogical and technological training and support. BL must align with institutional goals and priorities, which may create resistance to organizational change, that is further aggravated amid lack of organizational structure, and limited collaboration or partnership experience (Vaughan, 2007). This study argues that BL mode requires redefining organization and management to prompt success. To date, there is no study that explored the organizational and education management issues associated with BL. Relevant research studies ignores the individual or organizational practices, experiences and implications of this (Fallah, 2012; Townsend, 2015). For instance, how does this combination of teaching and learning-specific factors to BL and other organizational attributes impact practices of faculty in doing their work, organization and management. This paper explores these questions, examining faculty work practices, organizational structures and managerial techniques in BL modes. Among the very few relevant studies, Garrison and Kanuka (2004) shed light on the front-end administrative and development concerns in BL. Firstly, one distinguishing feature of BL is the capacity to deliver interactive learning environments to sizable student populations in methods that are both affordable and accessible. The establishment of relevant policies and procedures necessary to enable BL techniques must therefore take a more formal approach. Planning is second and related to policy setting. Strategic and operational planning are the two key levels of planning required to create and maintain BL (Osguthorpe and Graham, 2003). Identification of requirements, objectives, prospective expenses and resource availability are all part of the strategic planning processes (Tabor, 2007; Narang, 2022). Third, regarding resources, BL requires clear evaluation of the resources required to establish and maintain success (Narang, 2022). Financial, human and technical resources initiate and support BL (Heterick and Twigg, 2003). Fourth, to master the course management system (Tabor, 2007), as well as situational, informational and institutional hurdles, providing support for both students and teaching staff is critical. Finally, for administrators, policymakers and professors of universities, BL poses complexities as a result of large and irreversible changes in societal demands, financial shortages, competitiveness, technological breakthroughs and student demographics. Narang (2022) argues that BL requires substantial transformation of management stream that would eventually build up the momentum in shaping the future of the students. Consequently, addressing these complexities requires uncommon and innovative approaches and action, and the management of the educational enterprise needs to be rethought.

This research adopted a mixed-method approach, where two studies (Study I and Study II) were conducted as shown below. The sample included three universities (coded as University A, University B and University C), offering blended modes of delivery, that grant undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in two emirates in the UAE. These institutions have proven records in advancing sustainability, aligning with the UAE’s Green Agenda 2030 that aims to ‘achieve the goals of sustainable development in the UAE. The three universities were used in both Study I and Study II. The survey was hosted on Google Forms and data was collected exclusively within the UAE. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Institute Research Ethical Committee-IREC, ensuring adhering to ethical guidelines and code of ethics.

Study I aimed to answer RQ1, RQ2 and RQ3, with participants from undergraduate and postgraduate programs at these three universities engaged in blended learning. A convenience sampling approach was used, and data was collected via an online questionnaire to assess attitudes and behaviour (Babbie, 1990). The survey was administered over two semesters (Fall 2022–2023 and Spring 2022–2023) with 223 participants, as demonstrated in Table 1. The sample size of this study was calculated by using G*Power software. The BL experience was measured using 35 items adapted from the CoI framework, with Teaching and Cognitive Presence from Arbaugh et al. (2008) and Shea and Bidjerano (2014), and Social Presence from Wang et al. (2003). Data analysis involved Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Multiple Linear Regression (MLR).

Study II involved qualitative interviews with BL experts, including faculty, department heads, deans, vice presidents and senior managers, to explore how faculty practices and organizational factors support student growth in BL, addressing RQ4 and RQ5. Snowball sampling was used, starting with personal networks and expanding through momentum (Parker et al., 2019). Interviews (40–60 mins) were conducted face-to-face and online during Summer 2023. The data was transcribed by a research assistant and analyzed thematically using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) framework, in which data was organized around major findings, with a detailed thematic map in Figure 1. Sampling ended at saturation.

The final participant sample consisted of 27 individuals, and the demographic distribution is detailed in Table 2.

Descriptive and inferential statistics, using SPSS, were performed to assess the skills acquired by participants through BL. EFA was conducted to identify related subsets of scale items and test factor loadings stability (Hair et al., 2006), using Principal Components extraction and Varimax rotation. EFA was applied with eigenvalues > 1.00 and cumulative variance >50%. Bartlett’s test and the KMO measure were checked for data suitability. Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed, with Table 3 presenting convergent validity results (Hair et al., 2010). In the first EFA iteration, all item communalities were above the 0.5 cutoff (Hair et al., 2006).

Findings show that 5 variables were retrieved over the 35 items that accounted for 81.234%, exceeding the 50% cut-off. Variances were reported, ranging from σ² = 23.833% for factor 1 to σ² = 10.532% for factor 5. After evaluating the items loading, factor 1 was labeled Faculty Support, factor 2 as Cognitive Flexibility, factor 3 as Student Engagement, factor 4 as Learner Self-Actualization and factor 5 as Sense of Belonging. The Chi-square value of BTS was 9956.621, significant at 0.001 level (Williams et al., 2012). The KMO was 0.947, exceeding 0.6 cut-off value. The items for each extracted factor align with the proposed constructs in this study. The rotated factor loadings for all items exceeded 0.50 threshold (Hair et al., 2006). Eigen values of all constructs exceed the cut-off of 1. Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 0.924 to 0.971, exceeding 0.7 threshold.

Table 4 presents the Pearson correlations between the five new latent constructs from the EFA. The correlations of all five items were below 0.7 threshold, indicating sufficiency. Results show significant positive correlations between Cognitive Flexibility and Faculty Support, Student Engagement, Sense of Belonging and Learner Self-Actualization. Faculty Support also positively correlates with Student Engagement, Sense of Belonging and Learner Self-Actualization, while Student Engagement correlates with Learner Self-Actualization, and Sense of Belonging with Learner Self-Actualization. Overall, the Blended Learning Experience is significantly positively correlated with Faculty Support, Cognitive Flexibility, Learner Self-Actualization, Student Engagement and Sense of Belonging.

MLR was conducted to examine the relationship between acquired skills and Overall Blended Learning Experience, as well as to assess causal effects. Table 5 presents MLR results for testing linearity and multicollinearity to predict the Overall Blended Learning Experience.

Multiple R (0.947) reflects the correlation between Overall Blended Learning Experience and the weighted sum of predictors. R² exceeded the criterion (Quaddus and Hofmeyer, 2007), with the 5 predictors explaining 89.7% of the variability. The adjusted R² (0.894) accounts for error variance. The regression’s standard error was lower than that of the dependent variable, indicating more accurate results than the null model. The F-statistic from ANOVA is significant at the 0.001 level, confirming that the regression model is preferred over the null model. The results show statistically significant linear relationships between Overall Blended Learning Experience and the 5 constructs, suitable for regression analysis. All independent variables had tolerance values above 0.10, VIF values below 10 threshold (Hair et al., 2006) and condition index values below 30 (Hair et al., 1998), indicating no multicollinearity (Hair et al., 2006). The beta weights of all five predictors were significant at the 0.001 level, with Faculty Support having the strongest impact on Overall Blended Learning Experience, followed by Cognitive Flexibility, Learner Self-Actualization, Student Engagement and Sense of Belonging (see Figure 2).

This section presents the findings of the interview data analysis, describing the two key themes, subthemes and emerging themes that have been identified under the subheadings.

Faculty ascertained the instrumental role of the teaching practices they use and other efforts, presented as key support, to facilitate student learning in blended mode and overall success of BL. Consequently, two sub-themes emerged, namely, (1) faculty–student support inside the class and (2) faculty-student support outside the class.

Faculty indicated that their practices inside the class were mainly focused toward student engagement, while supporting students through behavioral engagement; emotional engagement, cognitive engagement, engaging students in multimodal learning and fostering creativity. Four of the faculty interviewees commented: “I know that students’ behavioral engagement is important for academic performance, thus, I relied mainly on active learning strategies to ensure that they are heavily engaged. (Faculty Member 2-University A).”

Interviews with faculty revealed that extensive efforts were placed outside the class that made BL a success. These efforts focused on being responsive and available for students; and redesigning courses. E.g., as faculty interviewees commented “we worked hard to redesigning our courses, through learning activities that provide combination of online and in-campus activities, along with placing minor emphasis on quizzes. (Faculty Member 8-University C)”

Interviewees suggested that the institutions’ organizational dynamics, seen as a multi-dimensional BL environment, facilitated the successful transformation of the educational framework and the development of competent faculty and students, enriching the BL experience. These dynamics were characterized as a continuous process of performance enhancement through appropriate leadership, management and strategies. Three sub-themes emerged from the analysis.

Interviewees emphasized the crucial role of middle and senior management in the success of BL, especially during the transition from online to BL. Managerial support included clear policy communication, faculty involvement in decision-making, constructive feedback, support networks and strategic planning aligned with the institution’s mission and resources to enhance faculty engagement in the digital environment.

Participants demonstrated the importance of effective communication at the level of senior leadership – middle management and faculty – middle management. This communication was characterized by top-down approach, clarity, conciseness, comprehensiveness and open for feedback and suggestions. One Dean commented: “I think that it is not necessarily our communication is always at the level of top-down model, it could be sometimes bottom-up, but with blended modes instructions need to be clear to avoid confusion. (Dean 3-University B).”

Interviewees noted that effective BL leadership, with key attributes, made adapting to BL easier. Successful BL leaders should foster innovation, create organized learning communities and build high-performance teams. Leadership qualities identified included empowerment, fairness, trust, emotional and cultural intelligence, inspiration, clear communication of vision, collaboration, empathy and digital competence. In line with the quantitative findings on faculty support, a new theme emerged: Faculty Personality Traits, to deepen understanding of faculty-student support in BL.

First, faculty confirmed all of the five factors that proved to be quantitatively determining BL experience. Interviewees reflected on additional factors that came into the interplay of faculty and BL experience, while considered as critical for the smooth delivery of BL. In that sense, FPT were perceived as a moderator that can either strengthen the influence of Faculty support on blended experience or reduce it. Faculty interviewees identified a number of personal traits and characteristics, in the specific context of facilitating BL delivery, namely, resilience, proactive personality and openness to experience.

Integrating quantitative and qualitative findings led to the final study model (Figure 3). Key organizational dynamics – management support, effective communication and strong blended leadership – were major predictors of high faculty-student interactions, both in and out of class. The strongest determinant of the overall BL experience was Faculty Support, followed by Cognitive Flexibility, Learner Self-Actualization and Student Engagement. Faculty Support, highly rated and significantly correlated with other factors, plays a pivotal role. The Faculty Support–BL experience relationship is strengthened by favorable faculty personality traits, such as resilience, a proactive personality and openness to experience.

Results show that students improved in Cognitive Flexibility, Self-Actualization and Sense of Belonging, and were satisfied with the skills, knowledge and engagement gained. These findings align with regional (Bøjer and Brøns, 2022) and international studies (Swan et al., 2020; Vázquez-Sánchez et al., 2021) on the benefits of BL. Consistent with previous research on Cognitive Flexibility’s role in the successful transition to BL and its impact on satisfaction, learning and community (Garrison and Arbaugh, 2007; Vázquez-Sánchez et al., 2021), Faculty Support emerged as the strongest predictor of the Overall BL Experience. Mumford and Dikilitaş (2020) argued that faculty interactions, both inside and outside the classroom, improve student engagement, motivation and perseverance, impacting factors like student engagement, sense of belonging (Wang, 2009), learner self-actualization, faculty support and cognitive flexibility (Geng et al., 2020). Faculty Support, as highlighted in this study, plays a key role in students’ overall learning (Chen et al., 2019; Almasi and Chang, 2020). However, unlike previous research (Garrison, 2017), Sense of Belonging received the lowest rating, likely due to the context, perceived targets and individual needs, emotions and experiences of the perceiver.

Students may have differing perspectives on the course (Almasi and Chang, 2020; Mumford and Dikilitaş, 2020), with some being more passive or struggling with time management, while others take ownership and use technology effectively (Vaughan, 2007). This study finds that sense of belonging is influenced by faculty support, cognitive flexibility, student engagement and learner self-actualization. The low rating for Sense of Belonging, compared to international research, raises questions about the influence of cultural factors in Emirati society on this aspect of the BL experience. This warrants further exploration. All of these factors align with SDG 4 and SDG 10, as universities play a key role in advancing SDGs through their communities. BL supports fostering the UAE’s vision for a flexible, resilient education system and a digitally driven economy, while addressing diverse student needs.

This study is grounded in the belief that BL has the potential to transform the education system in the UAE, despite being relatively new and under-researched. By combining in-person and online methods, BL enhances education quality, offers engaging learning experiences and broadens access to tertiary education. This inclusive approach supports SDGs 4, 5 and 10, promoting equitable access to education and lifelong learning opportunities for all. The UAE experience is effective, with strong institutional support systems in place. By highlighting Faculty Support as key to students’ overall blended learning experience, this paper aligns the UAE educational context with emerging international findings. The importance of faculty support underscores the role of organizational dynamics and faculty personality traits, suggesting a need to explore the country’s educational management culture. With the UAE’s political setting focused on sustainable education, BL offers an inclusive approach that redefines HEIs to be learner-centered, addressing fiscal and pedagogical challenges. This research is valuable for its novelty and practical implications, emphasizing the central role of faculty. Continuous pedagogical support for faculty is essential, and research into these areas in the UAE’s education sector is needed. Professional development should focus on teaching methods that enhance students’ self-directedness and self-actualization while offering a global perspective. This can be achieved by addressing pedagogical beliefs, encouraging experimentation with new technologies, planning reflection sessions and prompting faculty to assess courses from students’ perspectives. These initiatives must align with the local Emirati and Gulf cultural context to be effective. Second, administratively, the transformation of HEIs toward more advanced approaches is inevitable. Management can optimize this transformation by fostering a trust-based organizational culture that encourages experience sharing, creating opportunities for technological experimentation (e.g., innovation labs, BL boot camps), investing in leadership development for BL and disseminating best practices and toolkits that demonstrate how technology supports learning. This aligns with the UAE’s strategic vision, such as the Green Agenda 2030. Third, from students’ perspectives, learner self-actualization is crucial for enhancing engagement and the online component of blended learning. While students were satisfied, personal maturation, experiences and motivation impact learning success. It is recommended to intervene in addressing procrastination in the online component of BL and fostering self-regulation through online social identity groupings. A limitation of this study is the use of expert interviews, which, although valuable for uncovering insider knowledge, suggests the need for quantitative examination of contextual factors driving blended learning success. Future research could examine whether findings can be generalized into other Arab countries and reexamine the relationships, as the UAE ranks as the most high-tech country in the MENA region. In addition, this study has revealed the critical role played by the organizational dynamics on driving successful blended experience. Further research could explore how these attributes enhance student achievement and meaningful learning. Faculty support, a key driver of blended learning success, highlights the need for continued improvement in this area.

The authors acknowledge the support provided by Ajman University to publish this work.

Data availability statement: Data available upon reasonable request from the authors.

Conflict of interest: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.